The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1887-03-19

Paul ought to decide this question.
Those who take the position that the
heather have a chance to be saved in
the future life, certainly can rely on
Paul as one of their adherents; only
that he extends the favor to all men.
and not to the heather alone. Besides,
il God ceases to love, after death, any
whom he loved before, how can we de-
fend his immutability g? How can he
be without shadow of turning? One
would be apt to think the change here
implied something more than a shadow.
This is one of the most pernicious err
rors that ever crept into the church
during the dark ages. Associated with
another doctrine, that grows out of it,
and rests upon 1.-THE endless torment
of the wicked-it has done more harm
than all other errors. That it should
have been received, is the more remark
able, from its obvious opposition to the
teaching of Paul, and other New Test
ament authors.
2. In connection with death, Paul
mentions life, as not being able to sep
arate us from the love of God That is
good reasoning; for life is the gift of
God; and he never would have bestowed
it on those whom he could not love after
death, and especially, if he foresaw
that they would so live as to make life
curse to them. This reasoning is
correct, if God is a good being. This last
is acknowledged, and, therefore, need
not be proved. No being, possessing a
particle of goodness, would bestow life,
foreseeing that it would become an eter-
nal error.
8. Nor angels, nor principalities. AS
the first two things named have some
relation to each other, the same may
be true of the next two. In the imag-
nations Of men, an angel, possessing
great power, and having an innumera-
able company of subordinate angels
under him, has had much to do in sep
arating men from the love of God, by
leading them into sin, and misrepre-
senting his character.
All this, Paul says, is a mistake-not
that these things have not been done,
but that they have not and cannot sep
arate us from the love of God. Why
should they Did he not know that
men would be enticed into sin, and
would need Saviour to redeem them
And does not Jesus himself say, that
God so loved the world, that he sent his
beloved Son to save sinners and this
love for sinners was exercised before
they loved him. Hence the apostle
John says: "We love him because he
first loved u.s." OF course we were then
sinners.
4, To angels are added principalities.
There seems to be reference to the
great authority of some or all of these
evil angels. But with all this author
ity, they were not able to change God.
1t is doubtful if Paul believed even in
the existence of these adverse spirits
He may refer to them, simply in defer
ence to public opinion. 1t answered
his present purpose to deny the power
of such to separate us from the love of
God.
5. Nor things present, nor things to
come. 1t will readily be seen that these
descriptions run into each other, or
overlap. Life and death are both pres
ent and to come, so with angels and
municipalities, though not, perhaps, in
the form generally supposed. 1t was
not the purpose of Paul to avoid this.
His object was to combine number of
agencies, such as men thought might
affect the plans of God, and the destiny
of men, without regard to strict defini-
lions. Such combination and assem-
blage of persons or things, are what is
called periphrasis and it is strong
and emphatic way of making an affirm
alton. Nothing can separate us
from the love of God" would have ex-
pressed his exact meaning; but the
mode he employs is more forcible.
6. Nor height, nor depth. Surely
nothing above could be expected to do a
thing 50 unworthy, as to attempt to
separate men from the love of God.
But as this might be apprehended from
the powers below, Paul thought best to
name the things in contrast, as he had
done before. When the apostle had
mentioned death and life, things pres
ent and things to come, and the length,
height and depth, and had assured us,
as his fixed persuasion, that none of
these would be able to separate us from
the love of God, it would seem as if
every adverse agency is included, and
that we ought to be satisfied. We can
encounter every hostile force with the
utmost compOsure, SO far as the love of
God is concerned. Such a force may
change us for better or worse but not
God. He cannot be changed for the
better; for he is infinitely good, and
as an Interchangeable being, he cannot
become worse.
We have encountered nothing in the